Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Where do you see comics heading?

Mr. Steve Bryant gave his opinion on the the topic of the Pendulum swinging away from artists to now Editors and writers and it was quite interesting: "http://bullpenbulletinspodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=15238.0"

Is that what is happening?

Are artists valued as much as the writers or have they been pushed out?
«1

Comments

  • John_SteedJohn_Steed Posts: 2,087
    I guess to the (general?) public the writer seems to be more prominent.

    A writer usually has a much bigger output (i.e. Hickman) or does writing outside of the comics (i.e. Kirkman). So naturally a writer's name is better known. Only comic geeks like us see it different.

    The whole world knows Stan Lee.....

  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    Like Steve said, I think it's a reaction to the precedent of the "celebrity" artist made popular in the 90s. Incredible, jaw-dropping artwork, married to the work ethic of the grasshopper in the Aesop fable. If I've read one post on these threads over the years griping about a late book or a replacement artist on a book, I've read a hundred.

    Fact is, without the artist, it's not a comic. It's prose, or a script.

    And I'm as guilty of what he's talking about as the next guy. I'm constantly praising Paul Cornell's Demon Knights, when it's Diogenes Neves' artwork that makes his words explode on nearly ever page.

    Really, I think it's Marv Wolfman's fault. He was the first artist to get a creator credit on a comic book back in the 70s, and it's been downhill ever since. If only we could go back to the days when it was the character and the story that mattered, not the person creating it.

    That last sentence is meant in jest, but there's a granule or two of nostalgic seriousness in it. I miss the days when I would rush to the stand and say "Yes! A new Supergirl book! A new Batman book! A new Teen Titans book!" as opposed to "Oh wow, look at that Adam Hughes cover on that Grant Morrison book! I wonder what that's about?"

  • ZhurrieZhurrie Posts: 617
    I don't think that is what is happening. I think it is the readership that increasingly doesn't care or value art, I see it all the time and I hear it a lot as well. Art is not valued in today's society and creative pursuits that don't directly correlate to big bucks are looked down upon. I'm all about the art and artists, not just in comics but fine art, urban/lowbrow, modern, etc. In comics I find it a really strange relationship and outlook by the fans of such a visual medium where they may have a favorite artist or two but they care more about books being "on time" or how they are written than who is doing the art and when artists are shuffled around or moved off or on projects most are indifferent. I find that very strange, but a lot of people are OK with it. They are OK with mediocre art as long as it is serviceable or if the colors and lines are in the "right" place for a particular character or suit. Google Sketchup, stock photos, image reuse, etc. are all very prevalent in mainstream comics and it is glaringly obvious to me but I normally have to point it out directly before people even notice. I think people read the words and focus very little on drinking in the art along the way, so I think that is where a lot of it comes from. If the readers are OK with mediocre on-time art, why would companies go above and beyond and chance going late or pay for the talent? They know they can get away with it and not get negative feedback so they do. Bad writing will still cause feedback and dropped books, so naturally it gets more attention.

    Cully Hamner is one of the people I respect the least for his views on art and the future of the medium so I disregard pretty much anything he has to say on it even here where he is quasi pro artist. Scott Snyder writes in a very academic/formulaic fashion but he is the darling right now along with a few other key writers and he puts out solid work that rarely pushes any envelope or treads new ground but people can't praise it enough and he is in demand.
  • TobyToby Posts: 91
    ...just a quick two cents but I still buy my comics on art first. I come really late to the party on books driven by story but get George Perez or John Byrne on something and I will try it no matter what.

    Admitted old-timer.

    Toby
  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586
    edited April 2012
    I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
  • steve_bryantsteve_bryant Posts: 96
    edited April 2012
    Off topic, but something that stood out to me...
    Cully Hamner is one of the people I respect the least for his views on art and the future of the medium so I disregard pretty much anything he has to say on it even here where he is quasi pro artist. Scott Snyder writes in a very academic/formulaic fashion but he is the darling right now along with a few other key writers and he puts out solid work that rarely pushes any envelope or treads new ground but people can't praise it enough and he is in demand.

    I try my best to not disregard the opinion of other artists—especially those who have carved out a career over a couple of decades.

    One of my greatest learning experiences came from an anecdote about critically-acclaimed, award-winning illustrator/comic-artist Gary Gianni. Well into his career, Gary began taking painting classes from a highly-regarded Chicago portrait artist. When asked about his painting experience, Gary told the instructor that he paints "a little." The instructor acknowledged this by saying, "Excellent. We'll start with mixing a pallet."

    As the story goes, Gary never corrected the teacher and started all over at the beginning.

    I keep this in mind whenever I'm inclined to disregard the opinions of those who have gone before me.

    (Those of you unfamiliar with Gianni's work, visit this site: http://occamsbroadsword.blogspot.com/2010/05/frazettas-artistic-heirs.html Scroll down past the Frank Cho images.)
  • steve_bryantsteve_bryant Posts: 96
    edited April 2012
    I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
    Story isn't just the writing. In comics, the story is told visually, with input from both the writer and the artist. Disregarding the art in comics is like reading a screenplay and saying that you saw the movie.
  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586
    I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
    Story isn't just the writing. In comics, the story is told visually, with input from both the writer and the artist. Disregarding the art in comics is like reading a screenplay and saying that you saw the movie.
    I don't think I'm disregarding it. After I buy it, I can appreciate it.

    But when I'm looking at that wall of comics, that's the criteria I go with.
  • ZhurrieZhurrie Posts: 617
    Off topic, but something that stood out to me...
    My comment stems from his direct words in interviews and podcasts. He champions the idea of having 3D models of key assets/buildings (such as The Batcave) and 3D models of characters so that they can just be posed and camera angles selected and moved and everything can be one homogeneous look and basically no artist needed... he enthusiastically thinks this is great and a good direction for DC and future comics. Not just this one issue but he has made a lot of comments about marginalizing the art and proudly forcing set character designs/guides that should be stuck to among other asinine and non-creative ideals. So, no, I don't value his insights or opinions currently, especially the quote in the article linked here because I find it disingenuous. I'm not discounting his career.

    Other writers/artists currently at DC (or currently sacked) have highlighted this problem and similar ones that all point to this mentality and culture. I, personally, do not think that is the right path for comics to head in which was the question posed. But it is cheaper, faster, and lessens the need to pay or find skilled talent. That is not the future *I* want. I do think it is the future of mainstream comics though.
  • Off topic, but something that stood out to me...
    My comment stems from his direct words in interviews and podcasts. He champions the idea of having 3D models of key assets/buildings (such as The Batcave) and 3D models of characters so that they can just be posed and camera angles selected and moved and everything can be one homogeneous look and basically no artist needed... he enthusiastically thinks this is great and a good direction for DC and future comics. Not just this one issue but he has made a lot of comments about marginalizing the art and proudly forcing set character designs/guides that should be stuck to among other asinine and non-creative ideals. So, no, I don't value his insights or opinions currently, especially the quote in the article linked here because I find it disingenuous. I'm not discounting his career.

    Other writers/artists currently at DC (or currently sacked) have highlighted this problem and similar ones that all point to this mentality and culture. I, personally, do not think that is the right path for comics to head in which was the question posed. But it is cheaper, faster, and lessens the need to pay or find skilled talent. That is not the future *I* want. I do think it is the future of mainstream comics though.
    Weird. Every interview I've ever read with him—and everyone from Gaijin Studios—reflects a desire to improve one's craft. I'd love to read these comments for myself. Link?
  • I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
    Story isn't just the writing. In comics, the story is told visually, with input from both the writer and the artist. Disregarding the art in comics is like reading a screenplay and saying that you saw the movie.
    I don't think I'm disregarding it. After I buy it, I can appreciate it.

    But when I'm looking at that wall of comics, that's the criteria I go with.
    I have a hard time judging the writing when I'm looking at a wall of comics. ;)
  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586
    edited April 2012
    I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
    Story isn't just the writing. In comics, the story is told visually, with input from both the writer and the artist. Disregarding the art in comics is like reading a screenplay and saying that you saw the movie.
    I don't think I'm disregarding it. After I buy it, I can appreciate it.

    But when I'm looking at that wall of comics, that's the criteria I go with.
    I have a hard time judging the writing when I'm looking at a wall of comics. ;)
    Ah, I said story.

    So let's say I like...the Blackest Night story in the Green Lantern books I'm getting. And I see R.E.B.E.L.S has a Blackest Night banner on it. I'd pick it up for the story without even seeing the writing. ;)
  • electric_mayhemelectric_mayhem Posts: 641
    edited April 2012
    I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
    I did the same with CyberForce Hunter-Killer and that was the same artist on Madame Mirage and doing great on RHATO.

    LOVE me some Rocafort art.

  • ZhurrieZhurrie Posts: 617
    Weird. Every interview I've ever read with him—and everyone from Gaijin Studios—reflects a desire to improve one's craft. I'd love to read these comments for myself. Link?
    I will have to dig them up but I believe he touches on his vision of 3D models/assets even in the CGS episode with him on the New 52, I believe ep. 1132. He made those same types of comments a lot of places at that time of the relaunch. Current folks have echoed the sentiments and the overall company attitude on their own efforts and it all follows a similar pattern and line of thinking that seems prevalent right now. It seems to me that he, Lee, and some others now see themselves as executives/businessmen and above the pawns they move around at will and dictate changes and poorly communicated reworkings to. It seems very removed from Gaijin and even the in the trenches/hands-on work.

    Even if you take Cully out of the equation you can see the budding hints at this future right now when you flip through both DC and Marvel books. As I mentioned, Sketchup, stock images, re-using images or effects, etc. all heading in that direction. Digital comics, photoshop, and "assets" all make this an easy move that I can't see not happening when the bottom line is stock prices and shareholders and everything else taking a back seat.

    I am not even saying this is right/wrong for DC or Marvel, all I'm saying is that it might very well be the future direction for them and it is not in line with what my future holds for comics or art and I'll just continue to go elsewhere. For many it might be perfectly acceptable and fine and they may be very successful at it, they are a business and that is their choice and if they can pull it off successfully why wouldn't they? Even if they don't go full-bore, I think it will continue to trend that way with more and more creeping in as time goes by so they can test the waters and gauge reaction or a single book that goes that route as a toe in the water. It just isn't for me. I think the future for me will be more independent and creator-owned work and books from Drawn and Quarterly, Archaia, etc. I think they will continue to fill a niche and hopefully resist. Although, I saw the preview art from Planetoid upcoming from Image and it uses slapped in stock photo skies that are jarringly bad so I think it is going to spill over to some extent and be where things head. I don't have a crystal ball so this is just my educated guess.
  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586
    I buy my comics based on story and character first.

    The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
    I did the same with CyberForce Hunter-Killer and that was the same artist on Madame Mirage and doing great on RHATO.

    LOVE me some Rocafort art.

    Hell yeah. He is awesome, and I actually feel he makes the stories even better.
  • SolitaireRoseSolitaireRose Posts: 1,445


    Really, I think it's Marv Wolfman's fault. He was the first artist to get a creator credit on a comic book back in the 70s, and it's been downhill ever since. If only we could go back to the days when it was the character and the story that mattered, not the person creating it.

    Um, you DO know Will Eisner was credited as the creator on The Spirit in the 40's, Bob Kane was credited as the creator of Batman in the 30's, Simon and Kirby had their names all over their work of the 40's and 50's...


  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794


    Really, I think it's Marv Wolfman's fault. He was the first artist to get a creator credit on a comic book back in the 70s, and it's been downhill ever since. If only we could go back to the days when it was the character and the story that mattered, not the person creating it.

    Um, you DO know Will Eisner was credited as the creator on The Spirit in the 40's, Bob Kane was credited as the creator of Batman in the 30's, Simon and Kirby had their names all over their work of the 40's and 50's...
    Well aware, but there's an anecdote from (I want to say Michael Golden's Modern Master's book) but memory isn't serving me well this morning) talking about how up until a writer made a point of putting Marv Wolfman's name in a book (wasn't Teen Titans if you're wondering) because he'd mentioned him, it wasn't necessarily an expected thing that your name go on the cover (or sometimes even the credits) of the book.

    Nothing's more fun than reading all those great early Marvel books with "Swingin' Stan Lee" and "Joltin' Jack Kirby" with lettering by "Terrific Tom Orchewoski"...but apparently that wasn't something they had to do.

    Apparently the Wolfman incident has some significance to writers and artists getting their names on the books.

  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    If only we could go back to the days when it was the character and the story that mattered, not the person creating it.

    That last sentence is meant in jest, but there's a granule or two of nostalgic seriousness in it. I miss the days when I would rush to the stand and say "Yes! A new Supergirl book! A new Batman book! A new Teen Titans book!" as opposed to "Oh wow, look at that Adam Hughes cover on that Grant Morrison book! I wonder what that's about?"
    I really think this is the intent of both the big two publishers.

    They're trying to concentrate the value of their products back in the the things they own (the characters) rather than the things they don't (the talents of their current employees).

    Archie Comics has managed to do this for years. Even now, all the publicity* they're getting is about the stories, not the creators. (And yes, I am familiar with how badly Dan DeCarlo was treated, I'm not praising this practice, just saying that is an understandable business decision.)


    *Well... almost all the publicity... But even the other stuff is about ownership, not creators.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794

    They're trying to concentrate the value of their products back in the the things they own (the characters) rather than the things they don't (the talents of their current employees).
    And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

    (Puts on "old man" cap)

    Used to be a making a good comic made their creators famous. Nowadays a comic is famous for the creative team behind it, even though the first issue won't be seen for six months after it's announced.

    When I picked up my first issue of New Teen Titans, it wasn't because I saw that Wolfman was writing or Perez was drawing it. It was because the artwork was stunningly beautiful, and the characters were being handled like nothing I'd ever read before. And Starfire's boobs, but that's a whole other story. :) When I first read Dark Knight Returns, it wasn't because Frank Miller was a household word. It was because it was Batman, and the ads promised a decidedly different take on him.

    Now of course Wolfman, Perez, and Miller ARE household words, because of what they created. We've also learned that being famous doesn't necessarily mean you're going to always give us a quality read (At least in Miller's case. Perez shits gold and I'll take on all comers who want to say different! :) ). But it's gotten to the point where the creator sells the title...never mind whether the book is any good or not. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but as long as we're buying based on the creator, not the title, it's a trend that will continue.

    (Takes off "old man" cap)

    And that's not me being "anti-creator". I prefer to think of it as being "pro-good comics".

  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586

    They're trying to concentrate the value of their products back in the the things they own (the characters) rather than the things they don't (the talents of their current employees).
    And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

    (Puts on "old man" cap)

    Used to be a making a good comic made their creators famous. Nowadays a comic is famous for the creative team behind it, even though the first issue won't be seen for six months after it's announced.

    When I picked up my first issue of New Teen Titans, it wasn't because I saw that Wolfman was writing or Perez was drawing it. It was because the artwork was stunningly beautiful, and the characters were being handled like nothing I'd ever read before. And Starfire's boobs, but that's a whole other story. :) When I first read Dark Knight Returns, it wasn't because Frank Miller was a household word. It was because it was Batman, and the ads promised a decidedly different take on him.

    Now of course Wolfman, Perez, and Miller ARE household words, because of what they created. We've also learned that being famous doesn't necessarily mean you're going to always give us a quality read (At least in Miller's case. Perez shits gold and I'll take on all comers who want to say different! :) ). But it's gotten to the point where the creator sells the title...never mind whether the book is any good or not. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but as long as we're buying based on the creator, not the title, it's a trend that will continue.

    (Takes off "old man" cap)

    And that's not me being "anti-creator". I prefer to think of it as being "pro-good comics".

    I don't think I'm an "old man", but I agree with you.

    I feel like I'm "Pro-good comics" as well.
  • ZhurrieZhurrie Posts: 617
    @Torchsong Do you think there is a middle-ground though? I do. I think some people justifiably make a name and celebrity for themselves, I think others are manufactured. I don't instantly buy books based on the creative team or artist, I'm still critical of the work and it has to do something for me not just be popular. I also will buy a book by unknown folks (to me) for the same reason.

    I think there is a point though where it isn't about the creative people at all but the editorial staff and their whims and too much focus on bottom lines. These are comics, they don't cost millions to produce like video games or film but they are owned by these types of companies with these mindsets and to me it shows. I see the same trends in those areas cropping up in comics and I hear the stories of the creative people that echo the same crap. I just don't see any other outcome but what I've already mentioned previously when you factor all of that in and to me that is like my own personal nightmare. I watch documentaries and indie films and the rare occasional bigger movie and if comics continue to go that way it will be perfectly mirrored there for me too. Lots of people are happy with blockbusters and mindless/less-artistic movies, and that's OK by me but it just isn't what I like again same parallel.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    Zhurrie - Yes, there's definitely middle ground, and I'd be lying if I said there aren't occasions where I *do* see a book by a certain artist/writer and feel compelled to pick it up, even if I don't know much about the title itself (see a hypothetical example of my hypocrisy in the paragraph at the end!) . Only a Sith deals in absolutes... ;)

    I don't see it so much as the companies striving to protect the comics (the cynical side of me believes they really don't give a shit about the comics themselves), but the IP contained within them. Wolverine sells a lot of comics, but his movies also make a ton of money, and let's not get started on Batman - a comic book, movie, cartoon AND video game star. So you have things where a kid really enjoyed Batman: Brave and the Bold so his parents picked him up All-Star B&R and suddenly he's the "goddamn" Batman. Same deal with the "Starfire has boobs? And likes fucking?!? Well, I never!" argument around the first issue of Red Hood from last year. So not too surprising that editorial is trying to rein in their creators...admittedly somewhat INCONSISTENTLY...quite a bit.

    The ideal model for me is to let artists play in the big sandbox for awhile to make a name for themselves - and when they have, break out and show me what you REALLY have to offer. As I've said about Before Watchmen - I'm looking forward to reading Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Conner's take on the Silk Spectre. But I'd be doing cartwheels to see what they'd do if they'd paired up on something original.

  • SolitaireRoseSolitaireRose Posts: 1,445


    Well aware, but there's an anecdote from (I want to say Michael Golden's Modern Master's book) but memory isn't serving me well this morning) talking about how up until a writer made a point of putting Marv Wolfman's name in a book (wasn't Teen Titans if you're wondering) because he'd mentioned him, it wasn't necessarily an expected thing that your name go on the cover (or sometimes even the credits) of the book.

    Nothing's more fun than reading all those great early Marvel books with "Swingin' Stan Lee" and "Joltin' Jack Kirby" with lettering by "Terrific Tom Orchewoski"...but apparently that wasn't something they had to do.

    Apparently the Wolfman incident has some significance to writers and artists getting their names on the books.

    Maybe over at DC, but Marvel started adding credits back in 1962, so it's probably just that DC wasn't doing it until the late 60's.
  • mguy1977mguy1977 Posts: 801
    Lets see at DC it is the end of days w/ a new set of zero issues (is it 1992 again?) & "trinity War" in 2013. News of both events have me worried as a fan. I am curious as to what Morrison did over at Action Comics w/ issue 8 same for Batman 8 (ohh DCBS box you can't come fast enough). Going over to Marvel well the madness of AvX & AvX Versus seems to be the hot stuff for fans that want to see a "fight to the death" in comics. For me I want to see Bendis off move on to something else in the Marvel Universe. So I am eager w/ anticipation who will replace him on Avengers. I just can't wait to pick it up. Some good/sad news, Hickman is riding into the sunset w/ Fantastic Four & FF at the end of the year but I am so pumped for Waid new issues of Daredevil. Over at Image, Saga & Fatale are riding high and I must admit that is awesome to get on new series at the start. I look forward to more issues of Usagi Yojimbo as always that is my indie "heart & soul"when I am treated w/ one.

    In the fall, I may drop the bulk of issues & go to trades from 16 titles to 7 or 8 & buy in collected format more often (especially when DC wraps up its 2nd arc on their titles). I will still get Superman & Action Comics but I will be cutting "the comics fat" & go lean. Yes it is shocking I know but I may by a back issue here or there. After 30 years (1982-2012), I will be semi-retired from reading monthly comics so wish me luck.

    Matthew
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    and let's not get started on Batman - a comic book, movie, cartoon AND video game star.
    Don't forget the Underoos. In the end that's where the the real money lies. Not the comics, not the movies, not the cartoons, not the video games... the real money's to be made in licensing. When another company pays you just to use the image of your character, and all you have to provide is stock art, that's when the serious dollars start to flow.
  • MiraclemetMiraclemet Posts: 258
    Mr. Steve Bryant gave his opinion on the the topic of the Pendulum swinging away from artists to now Editors and writers and it was quite interesting: "http://bullpenbulletinspodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=15238.0"

    Is that what is happening?

    Are artists valued as much as the writers or have they been pushed out?
    Back to the original question. Are artist valued as much as writers?

    At the big two, No.
    Why?
    Because Marvel and DC are property houses, they are the stewards of intellectual property that generates a ton of $$$ for their owners.

    The Writers have a bigger influence on the development and growth of the characters (and thus more impact to the bottom line).

    The Artists impact the popularity of the comic they are on, but I dont think they have a big impact outside the comic they are on. They do shape how a character looks, but outside of some modernization, the characters are generally similar to their original concept (Spidey still wears the red and blue tights, Cap still has a shield, Iron Man is still wearing red and gold armor)

    I think Bendis, Fraction, Johns and the other big writers helped shape the "tone" of these characters, modernizing their character and voice in a way that Hollywood, TV, and other comercial entities could see their value in marketing other products.

    And its because of this that the big two put a bigger emphasis on the writers.

    Just look at the writers "summit" for marvel. Isnt it a big deal when an artist gets invited? (I seem to remember reading this happing at times, and it made it onto an article somewhere)... and its what the other writers (Im guessing) strive for when they start working at the company, to have enough responsibility to be able to help "shape" the character...
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    Back to the original question. Are artist valued as much as writers?
    I'll answer that question with two names:

    1) Stan Lee

    2) Jack Kirby
  • mguy1977mguy1977 Posts: 801
    Back to the original question. Are artist valued as much as writers?
    I'll answer that question with two names:

    1) Stan Lee

    2) Jack Kirby
    King Kirby in the 60s & early 70s certainly is the one to beat & now it is the writer because lets face it when was the last time a artist could put two books a month on time & be good. I like Stan but the last time Stan did anything good in actual monthly comics from the big two was introduce She-Hulk in the Marvel Universe.

    There can be the marriage of quality writing & art but it is largely done today w/ Vertigo, Icon as the side creative playhouses for creators at the big two w/ Image, Dark Horse & IDW getting the crumbs let over & the true indie outside the big 5 (aka after the front half of Previews) you get 5 to 10 big hits that have the greatest potential as "real" indie creators Jeff Lemire on Essex County, Stumptown by Greg Rucka & Matt Southworth, Alan Moore & Kevin O'Neil w/LOEG, Stan Sakai on Usagi Yojimbo for 25 years & Locke & Key by Joe Hill & Gabriel Rodriguez are batting a 1,000.

    Matthew
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    Back to the original question. Are artist valued as much as writers?
    1) By the fans - undoubtedly and deservedly yes
    2) By the major companies - no

Sign In or Register to comment.